Splatters of mud from the trenches of the gender wars

Why I am not a feminist

I had a lengthy chat with a producer from BBC Woman’s Hour the other day, about a feature they ran this morning on some men’s reluctance to identify as feminists. I missed out on the chance of a free BBC croissant in the end. This may have been partly down to my inconsiderate refusal to live in London like normal people, but in truth I think I lost her when I started channelling Nina Power on the reconstruction of feminism as a neoliberal capitalist accessory and the interchangeability of emancipation and consumption in the dominant discourse. With hindsight I should have stuck to the question of whether little girls can pee standing up.

The conversation did however give me pause to think about a fairly key question. I’m often told I am a feminist by others, in roughly equal measure as a compliment and an insult. I take it in the intended spirit either way. If others think I am a feminist so be it, but it is not how I define myself. By coincidence, this morning also saw the launch of a new blog edited by Joseph Stashko, entitled Meninism, exploring the place of men in the movement. I had the honour of the first piece on there, in which I argue that the feminist trope “the patriarchy hurts men too” is not the solution to male-specific gender issues. The tl;dr version would be this: Even if patriarchy does hurt men too, that’s for men to realise and address; we can’t leave it to women and feminism to solve it for us.

Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women. While any man can offer a voice of agreement, it is not for us to define the issues and prescribe the solutions. But with whom are we agreeing? Feminism is an impossibly diverse ideology, riven with internal argument and debate. To be a full participant in the movement, one needs to be able to take sides in those disputes. That puts a man in the impossible position of either telling half the feminists that you’re wrong and I know better, or else smiling and saying “well you both make very good points” like a liberal vicar trying to intervene in a pub fight.

If I’m forced to define my own politics, it would be in broad terms as a believer in social justice and human rights. From that perspective, I would have no qualms about telling a feminist that I think she is wrong about an issue. To take one example, there are many feminists who argue that there should be no prosecutions of women who make false allegations of rape. In my opinion, this is a patently unjust position, not from the perspective of feminism, but from the perspective of justice. A man who is grievously and maliciously wronged by such an act deserves redress, and others who may be so wronged deserve the protection of a legal deterrent. I can make that point more strongly and effectively if it is not prefaced by three little words ‘As a feminist…’ Indeed, I think a man who argues any point with those words is likely to find himself hoisted by the goolies, and probably deservedly so.

By identifying as a feminist, I would have a lot to lose, and little to gain. My stance does not preclude supporting feminists where I support their aims. For example, I wrote in support of the Slutwalk movement last year, not because I am a feminist, but because I agreed with the fundamental aims; I applauded their inclusive approach to men and trans people; and I admired the fusion of assertive female sexuality with demands for bodily autonomy and personal safety. I don’t need to define as a feminist to say that. On the contrary I’d like to think my words carry slightly more weight precisely because I do not.

Over the years I’ve been called feminist, pro-feminist and a ‘mangina’, I’ve been called anti-feminist and misogynist, and sometimes those allegations have all come in response to the same piece. Once there was a time when I cared about how my views were labelled by others, these days I mostly just eye them with curiosity. I’ll try to call the issues as I see them, and you can call me what you like. Deal?

UPDATE

By coincidence, the Good Men Project has also run a series this week on men’s place in feminism. There’s an awful lot of talk of transformational journeys and personal healing and the kind of thing that generally makes me reach for the sick-bowl. Sorry Tom, Hugo et al, but I don’t think the arena of gender politics is the best place to work through one’s personal demons and guilt. The series left me no more convinced about the value of the label “feminist”, and less convinced than ever about the label “good men” which is deeply problematic to me. One day I might come back to that.

But within the series, there’s a piece by GMP editor Noah Brand which is, I think, absolutely brilliant. Unlike me, Noah does identify as a feminist, but he does absolutely nail the point that feminism offers a lot to men, not just in terms of practical outcomes but in offering an intellectual toolbox to help us understand and analyse gender issues, and possibly even find some solutions. Go see.

To be a full participant in the movement, one needs to be able to take sides in those disputes. That puts a man in the impossible position of (…) telling half the feminists that you’re wrong and I know better

Why is that an impossible position? I certainly do take sides in feminist disputes and if I think someone’s wrong and I want to say something about it, then I’m going to. (As, for example, I’ve just done here.) My sex (male) may influence my feminist opinions but it doesn’t mean I have to be defensive about them.

I’d actually read your blog over the weekend and found it very interesting, it’s a good piece. But it wouldn’t be any less good or any less correct if you didn’t call yourself a feminist.

I certainly don’t condemn men who identify as feminist, that’s entirely your decision and your privilege. The post above was trying to explain why I personally feel more comfortable writing about these issues if I don’t – but your mileage may vary and all that.

But can I ask you what it is you think you gain (or for that matter, what you think feminism gains) from explicitly describing yourself as feminist?

you know what makes me laugh? when men say women have the right to define and organise as feminists for and about women. Then a woman comes along questioning their definition of feminism and the man tells said woman that his is the only ‘reasonable’ definition of feminism!

Indeed. and I am fine with you writing about feminism. I seem to recall I have published your writing on feminism on my own blog. But that is because I am NOT a feminist and I do not think feminism should be about women. I do not think it should exist. That strikes me as the only reasonable position on the subject.

FWIW I think that position on feminism – that it shouldn’t exist – is perfectly coherent and rational. Even though I don’t agree with, it makes sense on its own terms.

I think the position that feminism should exist and should be for everyone and about everyone, regardless of gender, is pretty silly. At that point feminism is so all-encompassing that it becomes completely meaningless.

Your points on why you don’t call yourself a feminist but support movements that may be broadly define themselves as feminist are exactly the same as the ones I would list. To agree with feminist theories on things like rape culture, and the male gaze does not mean one has to be a feminist any more than accepting Marx’s theory of alienation makes one a marxist.

I disagree jemima101. The concept of ‘rape culture’ in my view, is a key component of contemporary feminism. and to subscribe to it means to subscribe to the misandry, the ideas of ‘women’s victimhood’, and the lack of nuance around gender and the ‘gaze’ that feminism is promoting and reinforcing.

Maybe you are , from wikki.
“Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone sexual violence.
Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape. Rape culture has been used to model behaviour within social groups, including prison systems where prison rape is common and conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire countries have also been alleged to be rape cultures.”
Fail to see the misandry, especially as rape culture applies to the dismissal and trivialization of men who are raped,

Jemima I read your article and I don’t see how a third-hand account of a court case I wasn’t witness to can be proof of much of anything. It’s good to hear that some use the “rape culture” to include prison rape and war rape, but the only contexts I’ve ever seen it used in here are coming from people with a mindset that American culture itself is a rape culture, that rape tolerance runs rampant in our schools and college campuses and our media, and consistently downplay, demean, or ignore male victims, laugh at the whole idea of female perpetrators, and paint a picture of an entire culture like the US being a rape culture, with virtually every man a potential rape suspect and false allegations of rape rarely taken seriously and often dismissed.

If we are talking about wartime conditions wherein there is a “rape culture” such as when an army rolls through an area it’s conquered and kills all the men and rapes the women and a few of the men and boys that’s one thing; if you want to be on about how America is in itself riddled with a “rape culture” everywhere you go, it’s just hateful nonsense, and while I don’t live in the UK I have an awfully hard time believing it’s widespread there as well. It bespeaks a mindset that is both patronizing of women and hateful toward men to my eyes.

The article itself was an example of rape culture, the use of terms like lollita, The wikki link explained how everyone I have ever met who uses the the term views it, perhaps there is a cultural thing here, both my partner and my Dominant believe rape culture it exists and they do not fit your description. I do think you need to look at how the media presents rape and perhaps be willing to see how it works against people reporting it.

Hell if nothing else, you’ll have feminists who agree you can’t be a feminist because you’re a man. So calling yourself not-a-feminist is a feminist stance! You win either way! What you win isn’t exactly clear, so if it helps, I officially award you 50 points. You may spend them however you choose.

I won’t call myself by the dread “MRA” label either. Identity politics is so tiresome…

If “rape culture” is a key component of contemporary feminism, why is it that in almost 3 years of dating an active feminist academic & protester I’ve never heard her or any of her friends discussing it? Must be pretty central then.

There’s also a particular subset of male feminists and men’s theorists who make me quite uncomfortable – they’re the ones who are ashamed of stuff they’ve done in their past, adopt the issues in the way born-again Christians discover religion, then indulge in a bit of self-flagellation about how terrible men are. I think that’s a bit of a psychological cop-out in a ‘society’s to blame’ kind of way, it absolves them of some personal responsibility for their own past. I think that’s why I’m quite uncomfortable with the ‘good man’ terminology, with its echoes of the phrase “a few good men” – it slightly suggests that the adherents are somehow special and better than others, they are the ones who have been saved from the original sin of masculinity. Ironically, given the mission of the GMP site, I think it is has a splash of misandry to it. (although I think there are some very, very good people involved in GMP, I have very mixed feelings about it)

Basically I’m delighted if people turn their lives around, but I really don’t like discussions that pathologise masculinity. I think that’s really unhelpful.

Well, I agree with pretty much all of that. Especially about the “good man” terminology, which implies that men are inherently “bad” and need to be made “good”. And I’ve no idea what “good” means anyway, except that it nearly always involves someone else telling you what to do. Problematic!

“Personally I’m not prepared to abandon men’s issues to either feminists OR the misogynist, paranoid, anti-feminist wingnuts of the modern MRM. ”

If you were to go to the hub of the modern mrm, by far the busiest gender politics forum on the net – /r/mensrights and actually spend time there talking and listening to them, you would be hard pressed to find anything that fits that description and if you did it would be heavily down-voted.

I lurk on /r/mensrights a fair bit, as I’m not averse to harvesting it for the occasional interesting news piece or blog.

As for the regulars and the comments though, well, reddit is moderated and has posting rules about hate speech, including misogyny. I have no idea how many posts are removed, but at the very least the terms probably dissuade a lot of it from happening in the first place.

But as for the paranoid anti-feminism – well, it’s the main reason I never lurk for long. My god it is tedious and inescapable. I just went to have a quick look now and the top link was to a news story about a woman teacher being prosecuted and freed for abusing a boy. It only took half a dozen comments before someone said “oh I wonder how the feminists are going to spin this one” followed by several posts of discussion about how it will be blamed upon men somehow.

That is paranoid anti-feminism writ large. I don’t know or know of a single feminist who would excuse or apologise for sexual abuse of a boy by a woman. Indeed the first people I read discussing the issue at all (about 25 years ago) were feminists.

That’s exactly what I mean. Plus the fact that of the links on the first page, about half of them are devoted to specifically male issues, the other half to slagging off feminists.

@Hetpat Ever curious I took a look at Mensrights, The faq’s gave me this piece of genius “the legal bigotry put in place by the feminist movement.” I am afraid after that I gave up. Is there a place for men to talk about issues that relate specifically to men? Of course, whilst I read of the ruling of the German courts on male circumcision I chose not to write about it, judging Carter to be better qualified. Is there a place for men in the debates about gender politics? Again of course, however when such a debate takes place from a position of believing that moves to equality are a move to take rights away from men then the debate will go no where.

As Alice might have said to the march hare, if you see those laws then we honestly have no point of contact, anything I say will merely feed your fantasy, and by virtue of being a woman my views will be seen as part of a great conspiracy designed to rob you of whatever mythical rights you believe you had pre feminism.

I rarely describe myself as a feminist, I mean what woman who writes about her submission to a man and her acceptance of his natural superiority would, but 1 minute on mensrights was enough to have me burning my bra.

There needs to be an acceptance that laws designed to make things more equal are not about oppressing one group or another, I was active in sure start before the cuts, giving poor neighbourhoods access to the kind of facilities middle class families took as read, should that have been stopped because rich families did not get it for free? The Tory view was yes, I take the view that unless we are active in fighting inequality no one benefits.

” I don’t know or know of a single feminist who would excuse or apologise for sexual abuse of a boy by a woman. Indeed the first people I read discussing the issue at all (about 25 years ago) were feminists.”

That’s not paranoia

We are well used to feminists excusing/minimizing/denying female perpetrated abuse.

“Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence”

Feminism entire narrative and theory on abuse, is one that erases or minimizes female perpetration, so that comment is not rooted in paranoia at all, its rooted in dealing with feminists on a day to day basis.

Feminism historic misrepresentation and denial of abuse, is the main reason for anti-feminism.

A fine example of the paranoia we’re talking about. You take a handful of comments relating to ongoing debates about the extent and nature of domestic violence and sexual abuse against men and boys, all of which make specific points within specific debates, and weave them together into a grand narrative.

I’ve read and written extensively about the feminist line on DV. I’ve actually met and interviewed Nikki Graham-Kevan, the researcher you link to above. I’ve been involved in the precise arguments for years, and I have often written about the patriarchal control model of domestic violence and the failings of the standard feminist line on DV.

But that debate is about the extent and nature of various forms of female-perpetrated violence and abuse, and its severity relative to violence against women. I’ve also written about sexual abuse of children by women, its under-reporting and low salience. None of this is news to me.

But you’ll look far and wide to find a feminist who denies female violence and abuse occurs at all, and you’ll look far and wide to find a feminist who argues that a woman who sexually abuses a child (particularly one under her professional care) .who should not be prosecuted and / or punished.

That was the precise allegation made on the /r/mensright post I was talking about. And it shows a complete misunderstanding of what feminism is about including a misunderstanding of the serious objections to feminist theory and practice in this area.

“But you’ll look far and wide to find a feminist who denies female violence and abuse occurs at all, and you’ll look far and wide to find a feminist who argues that a woman who sexually abuses a child (particularly one under her professional care) .who should not be prosecuted and / or punished.”

But neither myself nor your example from /r/mr argued that feminists deny female violence occurs at all or that feminists typically argues that a woman who sexually abuses a child (particularly one under her professional care) .who should not be prosecuted and / or punished.

What your example mentioned was the feminist predisposition to minimize female perpetrated abuse in favour of patriarchal dominance theory, which is demonstrated clearly in the links I gave you, and the female sentencing discount.

“I had a lengthy chat with a producer from BBC Woman’s Hour the other day, about a feature they ran this morning on some men’s reluctance to identify as feminists. I missed out on the chance of a free BBC croissant in the end. This may have been partly down to my inconsiderate refusal to live in London like normal people, but in truth I think I lost her when I started channelling Nina Power on the reconstruction of feminism as a neoliberal capitalist accessory and the interchangeability of emancipation and consumption in the dominant discourse. With hindsight I should have stuck to the question of whether little girls can pee standing up.”

Yes, nice response Ally and as you probably know I’ve almost given up trying to exist on the Guardian’s site in whatever guise I adopt and instead have set up my own site, an historical record that can’t be censored.

“To be a full participant in the movement, one needs to be able to take sides in those disputes. That puts a man in the impossible position of either telling half the feminists that you’re wrong and I know better, or else smiling and saying “well you both make very good points” like a liberal vicar trying to intervene in a pub fight.”

Or you might consider not being a “full participant” and instead accept that until feminists, or at least the vast majority of them, have achieved their objectives, their male supporters should not even attempt to do anything other than accept their culpability and remain humble.

I’m a feminist. But a lonely one. I don’t meet any other feminists, I’ve never been invited to a feminist shindig, my mum’s not a feminist, my sister isn’t a feminist, my sister-in-law isn’t a feminist. Well I say that, but I don’t know for sure because we’re never asked each other. I find it strange that I’m causing such consternation amongst men, seeing as they never ask me if I’m a feminist either.

All I did today was go to Tesco and cook some dinner. I didn’t get a chance to do anything feministy.

I did have a brief chat with a builder, but then he was rude and dismissive to me because I made the mistake of being female I think. So I didn’t bother to give him a cup of tea, does that count?

Just wanted to say, thanks for posting this. I’ve just come across your blog, and new though it is, I like what I’ve seen so far.

I used to identify as a feminist, on partly the grounds that I agreed with certain feminist analyses and partly due to pure bloody-minded contrariness (“Well, why shouldn’t a man be a feminist?”). But having grown up and read more widely on the subject, I don’t any more. There are many good answers to that question I just posed. Feminism is, and should remain, a movement for women, by women; attempts to broaden it into something beyond that weaken it. When we men find ourselves wishing feminists would give more attention to certain issues, the right approach is not to hijack feminism for our own purposes but to work on our own movement. Trying to force men’s issues into feminism just harms feminism *and* harms men.

But it’s frustratingly hard to find people and places that share that attitude; there are precious few sites that discuss gender issues and theories from a male perspective without either being full of angry MRAs on the one hand, or being full of people saying “It’s all the fault of patriarchy, now just keep quiet, support your feminist sisters and await the revolution” on the other. (I paraphrase slightly.)

I’m glad I found yours, and I’ll certainly be coming back. (That Noah Brand article was good as well.)

[…] feminists, even if they opt to wear the badge? That would appear to be the implication. Personally I don’t identify as feminist, but don’t disagree with a word of the paragraph above. Where does that leave […]